2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

• 

  the blue December 2, 2013 at 01:00

  If she was (or pretended to be) so scared of HIV that she wanted medication for it, there were some requirements to fulfil to get this medication. The rules have been changed now, but apparently in those days there was a 72 hour limit, and a requirement was that the other person must agree to be tested.

  Friday morning was just within the 72 hour limit, so that day was the last chance to qualify for treatment. It could explain her desperation (real or pretended) to make him take a test immediately.

  I don’t know how strictly the rules were applied, but it could explain the urgency she felt on that particular day. It doesn’t explain exactly what she hoped to get out of the Friday hospital visit, but the timing, 72 hours after the end of their night together, fits well the HIV anxiety she displayed.

  Could it be true that she only wanted to have him tested in time, and that she played along nicely with the police hoping it would lead to them helping her to have him tested before it was too late? Perhaps that’s why she patiently remained at the station, until she realised it was too late to qualify for treatment.

  But it doesn’t explain her subsequent actions. By now she must have known for a long time that she wasn’t infected, so what motivates her now, or who motivates her now? If she only wanted him tested, it must have been a great relief that Finné dropped the charges the next day.

  Her brother testified that she appeared affected by HIV medication, but that is the only indication I know of that she got any treatment. Perhaps he misunderstood. If not, on what grounds did they treat her?

• 

  Arbed December 2, 2013 at 01:08

  But, I hasten to add, George Galloway is not *my* MP. There are strict Parliamentary rules that MPs can only deal with their own constituents, and Mr Galloway is certainly not stupid enough to break Parliamentary rules. He’s not a stupid man at all. Those SMSs he mentioned once are quietly circulating, though. Let’s hope they come out soon.

  Meanwhile, interested Flashbackers should scroll back up^ and re-read recent posts very, very carefully.

• 

  Arbed December 2, 2013 at 01:37

  Hello Blue,

  Could it be true that she only wanted to have him tested in time, and that she played along nicely with the police hoping it would lead to them helping her to have him tested before it was too late?… If she only wanted him tested, it must have been a great relief that Finné dropped the charges the next day.

  Hmm. Well, as soon as it became obvious that Eva Finne was going to close her case – 23 August (and officially did close it on 25 August) – Sofia Wilen MET WITH Claes Borgstrom the very same day, Monday 23 August. The first working day after the weekend during which the allegations against Julian Assange had fallen apart rather rapidly. It’s in Borgstrom’s invoice if you want to check. I doubt Sofia Wilen was bullied into that meeting, and subsequently stayed with the same counsel (and harassed him to do even more media smearing of Julian Assange, by his account) until March of this year.

• 

  the blue December 2, 2013 at 03:22

  Hi,

  If she had been honest, she might have welcomed Finné’s decision. But perhaps she had stretched the truth and thought it didn’t matter because she “only wanted him tested”, not charged with a crime. Unfortunately the police treated it as a crime rather than an urgent need for a test. The lawyer sees it as his duty to make sure she isn’t charged with making false accusations and tells her she has to stick with her story. There’s no way back. From now on it’s all about pretending it happened.

• 

  Arbed December 2, 2013 at 12:17

  Hi The Blue,

  Do you know much about HIV testing? I understand this 72-hour deadline is the limit at which a particular type of post-infection medication will be effective, but that does not preclude that that medication can have been given earlier than 72 hours – either at Dandryd hospital or Soder hospital visits on Tuesday 17 August (less than 24 hours after Sofia had sex with Assange).

  As we know – repeat know – that DNA swabs had been taken from Sofia by a hospital at the very, very latest on Wednesday 18 August, and that those DNA swabs taken from her had also included sufficient DNA from a man to be identified as male by the forensics lab which analysed them, isn’t it more likely that the hospital would have administered any medication that Sofia Wilen requested on the same visit? Personally, I don’t know the size of the sample of DNA required for a HIV test, but I would be interested to know whether a hospital would be able to separate out the male partner DNA from a swab sample and test that for HIV.

  Also, Hanna Rosquist’s statment implies that Sofia had already had a HIV test before her second visit to Soder hospital around 11am Friday 20 August:

  “B says Sofia wanted Assange to take an STD test. Sofia took a test but it takes a lot longer to get the results. Things would go faster if Assange took a test.”

  Remember that Hanna is speaking about conversations with Sofia she had on Tuesday 17 August. Hanna’s witness statement specifies that Sofia was already phoning and texting her about her worries about unprotected sex on Tuesday 17 August, which follow directly after this statement:

  “B next spoke with Sofia on the morning Assange slept over at Sofia’s. She can’t remember if it was a phone call or SMS messages.”

  Strange, though, that in the context of so much HIV worry, Sofia completely fails to mention to Hanna that she had heard a sound “like someone pulling on a balloon” during sex and found a fragment of condom under her bed. What could be more worrying than that to a HIV-phobic girl? Surely that incident would be a part of the worries she shares with her best friend?

  I have no idea how getting someone else to take a HIV test can possibly make any difference to the results of the test you have already taken yourself. Even if that person were to prove to be HIV-positive, it cannot possibly speed up the process of your own results, can it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me? Knowing whether you have caught HIV depends on one thing and one thing only: the results of a blood test showing whether YOU are infected.

• 

  Arbed December 2, 2013 at 12:39

  Could it be true that she only wanted to have him tested in time, and that she played along nicely with the police hoping it would lead to them helping her to have him tested before it was too late? Perhaps that’s why she patiently remained at the station, until she realised it was too late to qualify for treatment.

  No, that doesn’t work as a motive. By the time Sofia Wilen arrived at Klara police station at 2pm Friday 20 August, it was already past the 72-hour deadline in which post-infection medication would be effective. So, getting police advice about forcing Assange to take a HIV test at that stage cannot be explained away as a result of an urgent need/desire to receive PEP medication. It was already too late for that.

• 

  the blue December 2, 2013 at 13:47

  Hi Arbed,

  In Swedish the word “dygn” is used for 24 hours. The Swedish text used “3 dygn” as time interval, which might less precise than “72 hours”. 3 dygn is more like three days and nights, not necessarily exact to the hour.

  The info is based on post #58225 in the Flashback thread. The rules given there were valid in January 2011, but has since been changed. I’m not sure if they were the same in August 2010. Here’s my rough translation of the rules from January 2011, based on that post:

  Valid January 2011:

  There are no official national rules for PEP [post exposure-prophylaxis] treatment. In Stockholm infection clinics have agreed on the following criteria for STDs:

  – You must have been exposed to high risk for HIV infection, for example unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse.
  – You must see a doctor within 72 hours (In Swedish “3 dygn”, where a “dygn” is 24 hours)
  – If it’s known that the sex partner has HIV, PEP is started immediately
  – In case of anonymous sex, where the sex partner is unknown, or the sex partner do not want to test himself/herself, you don’t get any PEP treatment.

  I don’t know how strictly the hospital applied the 72 hour (3 dygn) rule, or what time SW had given the hospital for their last (alledegdly) unprotected sex. If she was so eager to get the treatment, there is even a possibility that the morning story was fabricated to postphone the timing for the last unprotected sex. For some reason her brother assumed she was given the treatment.

  It sounds as if she had a general reaction “against” him as soon as he had left on Tuesday. She wanted to shower, do laundry, clean the flat, get a morning after pill and get treated for infections to remove any remaining trace of him.

• 

  Arbed December 3, 2013 at 09:15

  Hi Blue!

  Well, I can agree with your last paragraph, but the rest I’m not convinced by. Are you suggesting that a hospital that has felt it necessary to do a DNA ‘rape kit’ on someone and taken swab samples from them (based on whatever story they’ve been told) is going to refuse that person immediate treatment for potential HIV infection unless and/or until their ‘rapist’ has also taken a HIV test? That’s downright unethical. How many rape counselling services do you know that would advise a rape victim to contact their ‘rapist’ and demand he does a HIV test, just so that the rape victim can receive treatment? The whole idea is preposterous. No, the whole “things would go quicker if Assange got tested” / “I only [went to the police because I] wanted him to get a test” is – as well as being medically nonsensical – a part of Sofia Wilen’s diversionary tactics/blame-redirecting/false allegations avoidance. As Batuta points out in the link below, by the time Sofia Wilen arrives at Klara at 2pm on Friday 20 August, the whole “wanting advice about forcing someone to get a HIV test” as a reason for being there is already null and void.

  https://www.flashback.org/sp46411975 (English speakers, use Google Translate)

• 

  Arbed December 3, 2013 at 11:38

  https://www.flashback.org/sp46410038 (English speakers, use Google Translate)

  Well done, Trenterx! You are almost there, my friend. You are right: “It could have stopped there [Sofia Wilen’s HIV test and treatment thereof by at the latest Wednesday 18 August] but it did not. There were police visits and rape notification on Friday. Something more is needed to explain this.”

  The thing that people need to factor into their theories is the torn condom fragment from Sofia Wilen. This is the most crucial piece of evidence in the entire case. BECAUSE it is the ONE piece of evidence – the sole piece – that “doesn’t fit” anywhere in the ‘official’ Sofia Wilen/Marianne Ny allegations against Assange. That’s always the piece of evidence you should scrutinize the most – the piece that “doesn’t fit” – because that will be the key.

  And the reason that it doesn’t fit is that it is A FRAGMENT of a condom. Remember, in the forensic report we have TWO torn condoms from TWO different women (one ostensibly ‘explained’ by the woman’s allegations [Anna’s – she says Assange ‘tore’ a condom], and one most decidedly NOT ‘explained’ by the woman’s allegations [Sofia’s – she says Assange didn’t use a condom during half-awake sex]). BOTH are deliberately torn, not cut with scissors, knife or any other tool. If the condom from Sofia Wilen was sent to the forensics lab merely to provide ‘evidence’ that sex had taken place, or to match DNA to her vaginal swabs, then it would normally be either A WHOLE CONDOM or perhaps A NEAT SQUARE of condom fabric snipped out by the police or lab technicians. But no, this is a TORN (manually torn, says the lab) fragment.

  So, we have:

  a) a forensic lab report showing that Sofia Wilen’s condom evidence has been manually torn
  b) a note by Mats Gehlin added to the file that Sofia Wilen has stated at some point that she heard a sound “like someone pulling on a balloon” and that the condom fragment was found under Sofia Wilen’s bed
  c) an explanation from Linda Wassgren that she had two women turn up at the police station together and that “rape was mentioned from the start and that both women were victims… everyone agreed it was rape”

  … then a whole heap of hullabaloo, premature ejaculation of an arrest warrant and early morning edition headlines (global) of Assange being sought for DOUBLE rape. The word “Double” in those very early headlines on Saturday 21 August 2010 – before Eva Finne is drafted in and sorts out the mess later in the day – is so, so very important. [I shall do a separate post analysing the timestamps in Sofia Wilen’s text messages that are now in the public domain vis a vis those early morning global headlines another day – unless you guys beat me to it! :)]

  You see, Mats Gehlin is not submitting either condom to the lab to get evidence of sex having taken place – he has no reason to do so: both women’s statements say the sex was consensual, or at least started that way. Neither is he submitting them for the purposes of DNA matching – he has no reason to think Assange’s DNA would already be on a police database somewhere, Swedish or otherwise, and he knows that DNA samples are already available from Sofia Wilen’s hospital swabs (in fact, these must have been forwarded to the lab at some point before 25 October 2010 – perhaps after Mats Gehlin first telephoned the lab on 20 October and discovered there was no DNA on one of the condoms? – in order for the lab to write in its report that it has matched them to the condom fragment). He doesn’t even tick the box for DNA analysis.

  I do not see this last point – Gehlin not requesting DNA analysis – as being particularly sinister. Sloppy police work, maybe; sinister, no. Here’s why:

  Mats Gehlin’s instructions to the forensics lab are SPECIFICALLY to analyse how the tears in both women’s condom evidence have been made. That is his exclusive interest because he is trying to gather evidence about a SPECIFIC CRIME – that of someone surreptitiously and deliberately sabotaging a condom during sex with unsuspecting women. On both condoms, ie. in respect of both women.

• 

  Arbed December 3, 2013 at 11:44

  Let me see if I can illustrate this another way. In the UK High Court judgment (use this link, so you can see for yourselves what I am trying to explain: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ) during its long diversionary look at the underlying allegations to cover the true political reasons for ordering Assange’s extradition (nota bene: meaning, “noted as a side issue”, ie EAW law forbids them from taking any of these deliberations into account. The judges also claim Ny’s allegations are presented to the court de bene esse: meaning, “of validity for the time being but subject to objection or nullification at a later date, provisional”), take a look at paragraph 94 in the section devoted to deciding whether Anna Ardin’s allegation about ‘deliberate tearing’ of a condom would meet the dual criminality bar by also being considered an offence in the UK. It is the only paragraph in the whole judgment where they mention the Swedish police forensic report:

  “94. The evidence in the file showed that the condom was examined by the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science. The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom.”

  [Which seems to catch out the UK judges in a lie. We can see for ourselves that the lab report does not even TEST for wear and tear; they match the edges of the ‘tears’ in both condoms to a tear they have created manually on the back of Anna’s condom. And if you really want a shocker illustration of how the ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are two separate things, read paragraph 95 of the High Court’s judgment!]

  Now look at the previous 20 or so paragraphs (from around para 71, I think, from memory). These set out in lots of legalese the details of a number of UK case law examples of where rape has been carried out “by deception”, ie. by in some way or other “deceiving” the woman involved.

  Remember Marianne Ny’s ‘slip-up’ on the extradition warrant itself about “consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge“? Putting aside for a moment the fact that it is clearly totally bogus of the UK judges to equate “wear and tear” with “deception”, can you see how both they and Marianne Ny are trying to define the act of sabotaging a condom “without her knowledge” as “rape by deception”?

  THIS, people, is why Linda Wassgren starts phoning around her colleagues for advice on 20 August and “everyone agreed it was rape” – an alleged crime so odd, so unique, that initially nobody knew what to call it. But they all felt it HAD to be some sort of sexual crime, because they’d had two women turn up saying that one man had done the same thing to each of them – Anna was wet afterwards and could swear that he’d broken the condom deliberately; Sofia had heard a strange ‘pulling balloon’ sound during sex in the dark and had found a condom fragment under her bed.

  THIS is what Mats Gehlin’s SPECIFIC instructions to the forensic lab is trying to gain evidence of – a pattern of behaviour – deliberately and surreptitiously sabotaging condoms – that could be called “serial rape by deception”.

  THIS is what Alex Gibney’s focus on the photo of the torn condom in his documentary and his absurd theory, told through his interviewees’ ridiculous speculations about “Digital Man”, infering that Assange goes about the world impregnating women through deceitful means, Mendax-style, is all about. Gibney had, after all, just personally interviewed one of the women complainants. Personal malice on his part towards Assange does the rest.

• 

  Arbed December 3, 2013 at 11:54

  I shall do a separate post on analysing what day the two women first spoke to each other [with reference to the 1 Sept 2010 Aftonbladet article] another time. I’ve a few things to point out about that too, but too busy/too tired right now.

• 

  the blue December 3, 2013 at 14:31

  Hi Arbed,

  Yes, I agree that the rule about the partner taking a test makes no sense in case of rape. It is possible that the talk about PEP treatment only comes from her brothers testimony, and he could have mixed it up with a morning after pill.

  But, just to look at it from every possible angle: Even though nobody is denied a rape kit examination, PEP treatment is probably not given as freely. Some evaluation is made whether it seems necessary, given the circumstances, and it is possible that she was denied it. Could she have thought that if only she could make him have a test, she had a chance to get it? But she could have said so, and there is no record of her doing that, so perhaps it was never a question about getting treatment.

  I think it comes down to whether she was confused and irrational and possibly misguided, or cold and rational and in control on that day, the 20th of August 2010. She could have been scheming either way.

• 

  axel December 3, 2013 at 15:47

  Arbed. I am almost prepared to give in to your tour-de-force. One comment only for the moment: In the police questioning of Assange about what he might have done to Ardin, the balloon sound is an important feature. At this point Mats Gehlin believes that Anna clearly has heard a balloon sound. Almost two months later, in his memo, Gehlin writes about the balloon sound as something that Sofia had heard. It fits the story about two similar events, but sounds very unlikely to me. I don’t remember that it is mentioned at all by Sofia. Maybe Mats Gehlin’s memory is not very accurate?

• 

  Arbed December 3, 2013 at 23:05

  Aha Axel, very good question!

  But, you see, I don’t believe Mats Gehlin is confused between the two women in his interrogation of Assange for one second. You have to remember that the interrogation takes place on 30th August 2010 and Sofia Wilen’s case was not reopened by Marianne Ny until the following day, 1st September. On 21st August, he had been instructed by Eva Finne to “do nothing further” on Sofia’s case – there is an email somewhere of him grumbling about that; he couldn’t understand why Finne took that stance – and she had closed Sofia’s case entirely on 25th August.

  Here, in English, is the only reference to any sound related to a condom in Anna Ardin’s witness statement:

  Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off.

  That’s all. Hardly enough for Mats Gehlin to be so focused on questioning Assange about a sound, is it? So I think Gehlin was taking advantage of the opportunity of interrogating Assange on Ardin’s case (and one allegation – of non-sexual molestion – was all he was supposed to ask about) to do some unofficial “fishing” for answers about Sofia Wilen’s “sound like someone pulling on a balloon”, because he still considered this to be the “heart” of the case.

  Which he would do, wouldn’t he, if ‘two women reporting the same man for deliberately breaking condoms’ is the story he’d heard first? As I’ve heard it, a “copper’s nose” [police detective’s ‘gut instinct’] tells them that witnessess’ very first statements are the ones most likely to be closest to the truth.

  The fact that nearly the whole interrogation is about Anna’s ripped condom allegation – which isn’t my idea of a non-sexual event – perhaps suggests that Mats Gehlin’s “copper’s nose” leads him to bend the rules slightly in pursuit of an investigation?

  Anyway, that’s my interpretation on your question.

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 12:44

  Axel,

  In the police questioning of Assange about what he might have done to Ardin, the balloon sound is an important feature. At this point Mats Gehlin believes that Anna clearly has heard a balloon sound. Almost two months later, in his memo, Gehlin writes about the balloon sound as something that Sofia had heard. It fits the story about two similar events, but sounds very unlikely to me. I don’t remember that it is mentioned at all by Sofia. Maybe Mats Gehlin’s memory is not very accurate?

  Bingo! There’s the rub, you see. Let’s go back to what Donald Bostrum says Anna Ardin told him about the two women’s first conversation at Klara police station with Linda Wassgren (the completely unrecorded one, before either woman had made a formal statement, so around the time of Sofia Wilen’s “the police are very keen to get a grip on him” text message [2.26pm]). Here’s the relevant part of Donald Bostrum’s statement:

  And then Anna rings again and says now we’ve been with the police and Sofia told her story and, yeah because I sat there so I added a comment of my own. This is very ‘word for word’ and as I remember her telling me. Uh, aha I say, and what was that comment. Yeah that comment was that I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar Anna says then. And then she told me that bit about the condom then, so that’s why I think it’s true. And I don’t know anything about police technicalities but then Anna says, because we suddenly were two women who had a statement about, about the same man so it became a crime against the state and so it became a complaint even though we didn’t file a complaint.

  Let me break that down a bit for you.

  First, Bostrum explains to the police that he is quoting Anna Ardin verbatim: “This is very ‘word for word'”

  and he explains that Anna tells him that she interjected with a single comment to Sofia’s story as the latter was talking to Linda Wassgren: “because I sat there so I added a comment of my own.”

  So, THIS is VERBATIM the exact ‘comment’ Anna told Bostrum that she had said to Linda Wassgren:

  “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar, so that’s why I think it’s true.”

  then [Bostrum tells police] Anna explains to Bostrum what she had meant by “I experienced something similar” – “then she told me that bit about the condom”

  So, now tell me what was it EXACTLY that Sofia Wilen was telling Linda Wassgren at that precise moment when Anna Ardin chose to interject with that one sentence – that one SINGLE sentence “I believe Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar, so that’s why I think it’s true.”, with no further explanation?

  According to Anna Ardin’s own witness statement detailing allegations relating to her own experience during sex with Assange, “that bit about the condom” can mean one or other of two things:

  a) Assange holds her down to prevent her reaching a condom –

  = no similar incident mentioned in Sofia Wilen’s official statement or in any of the witness statements of her friends

  b) Assange deliberately torn a condom during sex –

  = no similar incident mentioned in Sofia Wilen’s official statement or in any of the witness statements of her friends BUT i) attributed to her in Mats Gehlin’s file note of 20 October that Sofia said she heard “a sound like someone pulling on a balloon”/a condom fragment was found under her bed (by whom, exactly? – that’s THE question) AND ii) present in the hard, physical evidence of a photograph of a deliberately torn condom fragment from Sofia Wilen (the DNA on it matches HER)

  Conclusion: Sofia told one story to Anna Ardin and Linda Wassgren, and a different story omitting this particular allegation in her official statement and in the phone calls and SMS she made to her friends. Further conclusion: She did so to avoid the possibility of being charged with making false allegations. Meanwhile, she had achieved co-opting Anna Ardin to back up her false story and getting Assange arrested (ie. ‘revenge’ for being two-timed and/or Assange turning out to be a normal, fallible human being once she’d got to know him intimately, rather than the fantasy figure she’d previously constructed in her head).

  Does that make sense?

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 13:42

  PS. I appreciate that it is hard to see what Donald Bostrum is reporting in his statement because whoever did the translation messed up the punctuation – put the commas in the wrong place, didn’t include question marks or quotation marks, etc – so here is a revised version. It is EXACTLY the same words, but with the punctuation cleaned up:

  And then Anna rings again and says: “Now we’ve been with the police and Sofia told her story and, yeah, because I sat there so I added a comment of my own.” This is very ‘word for word’ and as I remember her telling me. Uh, “Aha,” I say, “and what was that comment?”. “Yeah, that comment was that ‘I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar’…”, Anna says then – and then she told me that bit about the condom – then “…’so that’s why I think it’s true’.” And I don’t know anything about police technicalities, but then Anna says: “Because we suddenly were two women who had a statement about… about the same man… so it became a crime against the state, and so it became a complaint even though we didn’t file a complaint”.

  See?

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 15:33

  Axel,

  To be clear: What I am saying in the above few posts is that we do NOT have to rely on Anna Ardin’s claim that Sofia Wilen has told the police a false story. Ardin may, after all, be being disingenuous to Donald Bostrum (she handed in fake, DNA-free evidence, so she’s not exactly a reliable witness) and, obviously, she will have had motives of her own for her actions.

  But we don’t have to rely on Ardin’s statements alone. We can add to them a policeman’s memory/file memorandum and hard, physical, photographic evidence of a false story by Sofia Wilen backing up exactly what Ardin has said. Putting all three things together: Ardin’s statements, a policeman’s memorandum, and photographic evidence makes a pretty strong case for it. Not to mention, of course, all the other bits of evidence here and there in what’s already in the public domain – the leaked police protocol/other documents released under FOI/Wilen’s own text messages ‘leaked’ in Assange’s recent sworn affidavit – pointing to MAJOR INCONSISTENCIES in Sofia Wilen’s allegations and statements made via her legal counsel/s.

  And there’s more to come. As I said above, the unreleased SMS of the two women are quietly circulating. I mean, George Galloway – who claims he HAS seen them and that’s why he said “I think it’s a fit-up and the two women are lying” [there’s a video podcast by Galloway on the internet where you can listen to his exact words at 25 minutes into the video] – must have seen them somewhere. As Galloway has never claimed any direct relationship with Wikileaks or Julian Assange, I think it’s safe to assume he has some other source for these unreleased SMS.

  I also think it’s safe to assume the reason no one who’s seen these unreleased SMS of the two women has yet put them into the public domain is that there’s a general recognition that it’s the Assange defence team’s perogative to hold them as a ‘trump card’; to choose their moment rather than ‘show their hand’ and give Marianne Ny time to concoct a further abuse of due process (and she has already done so before; she’s got ‘form’ on that front).

  And I ALSO think it’s safe to assume that you can bet your bottom dollar that they are dynamite… and will blow the women’s stories (particularly Sofia Wilen’s) away.

• 

  axel December 4, 2013 at 17:05

  Arbed wrote: “And I ALSO think it’s safe to assume that you can bet your bottom dollar that they are dynamite… and will blow the women’s stories (particularly Sofia Wilen’s) away.”

  Response: Hmmm. I assume that Marianne Ny must know the content. Which suggests that the Swedish Prosecutor might never ever charge Julian. Charging and going to court should reveal the SMS texts.

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 18:05

  Axel,

  Yes, indeed. I agree with you whole-heartedly.

  And, when we consider that, to date, only FOUR of Sofia Wilen’s time-stamped and dated text messages have come out into the public domain via Julian Assange’s affidavit, and that the same affidavit – at paragraph 96 – says that Assange’s lawyers are in possession of TWENTY-TWO of those women’s text messages that Marianne Ny has tried her very, very hardest to ensure never become public… Well, one can only imagine how much damage the OTHER EIGHTEEN time-stamped and dated text messages will do to the prosecution’s case. Indeed, how much damage they could do to the credibility of the women’s allegations in the first place. Although, as you know, I personally think the already-available evidence indicates that Sofia Wilen’s credibility is much, much lower than Ardin’s (blimey, what an assertion that is, eh? – when you consider that we already know that Ardin submitted a used condom with no DNA on it as evidence – but I stand by that assertion, very very strongly indeed. And I look forward to being proved right).

  Ooh, exciting! Can’t wait. Can you? I’m very good with time-stamps and dates. You may have noticed.

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 18:12

  Those FOUR from Sofia Wilen alone have already generated a huge amount of requestioning of her story and what exactly went on that Friday summer’s day, August 20th 2010, and the week leading up to it…

  So many people picking apart Sofia Wilen’s and her witness friends’ statements because the timestamps on those FOUR texts simply don’t match what we all thought we already knew…

  And that’s just FOUR. Think what the others could reveal…!

• 

  Arbed December 4, 2013 at 20:19

  Here’s a good example of how I think evidence already in the public domain shows that Wilen’s credibility is much much lower than Ardin:

  It’s about the fact that Ardin tells Bostrum that Sofia had told her [Ardin] that Assange had continued unprotected sex with Sofia above her [Sofia’s] loudly stated protests “No, don’t go on”.

  Now, is this Anna lying about what Sofia had said, or Anna truthfully relaying what Sofia had told her? Is it a 50/50 call, or does the balance tilt in more in favour of one woman or the other?

  Consider the following things:

  1) In Sofia’s own [unsigned] witness statement – made between 4.21pm and 6.40pm on 20 August 2010 – she makes it clear that all she said when she realised the sex was unprotected was “You’d better not have HIV” and she let the sex continue. No loud protests there.

  2) Donald Bostrum’s statement – made on 20 September but explaining conversations he had with both Ardin and Assange ON THE MORNING of Friday 20 August 2010 – says a number of things:

  i) that he generally considered Anna a “very, very credible” person, but that things in her story “didn’t add up” because they were inconsistent with things she had told him earlier in the week and/or he knew to be true because he’d heard/witnessed them for himself. So, either Anna is straight out lying to Bostrum about Sofia’s ‘protesting’ about unprotected sex with Assange, or Anna is truthfully confessing to fibs she’d told Bostrum earlier in the week and she is now exaggerating about her own experiences with Assange – possibly because she’s been influenced in her thinking by lies told to her by Sofia Wilen that she has believed.

  ii) In two separate places, Bostrum says Anna told him about Sofia’s protests about unprotected sex being ignored by Assange: “Anna says and then Sofia tells me Julian continues having sex with her in the morning without protection, without a condom. And she doesn’t want that and she protests, uh, but Julian continues and completes the sex without protection despite Sofia’s protests, says Anna” and further down he says “Anna said that Sofia protested, clearly and loudly that, no don’t go on.”

  iii) In the same two places, Bostrum tells police of Julian Assange’s reaction when he [Bostrum] confronted him (on the MORNING of Friday 20 August, remember) with this specific allegation, about Sofia Wilen’s alleged protests as relayed to him by Ardin: “his reaction is shock, he doesn’t understand anything, of course he has a contrary story. He says Sofia didn’t protest at all, they were just having fun.” and “then he became, he became upset several times. I’ve brought that up several times. And then he gets like upset, he absolutely didn’t do that he says emphatically, or she didn’t do that. And so he says as well that it’s a pure, pure, pure, pure lie.”

  Gosh, that IS a very strong reaction, isn’t it? This seems to be the one thing in all the talk of Anna’s tales of broken condoms, alleged requests to move out and talk of HIV tests against which Assange reacts most of all. But who is doing the “pure, pure, pure, pure” lying here – Anna, or Sofia? It’s kinda undecidable from Bostrum’s statement. Could be 50/50 either way.

  By the way, you can check all this in Bostrum’s statement here: http://rixstep.com/1/20110202,04.shtml (and you can try this experiment: Re-read Bostrum’s statement, from top to bottom, in light of my theory that Sofia has told a false story/submitted false torn condom evidence. Pay particular attention to the questions being asked by Mats Gehlin, bearing in mind that this false story may be the one that Gehlin heard too.)

  Now, take a look at Johannes Walstrom’s statement. He says he received a call from Donald Bostrum on the MORNING OF FRIDAY 20 AUGUST:

  He said to me, uh, are you sitting down. And, and I immediately became very worried. And so he said that, that Julian has been accused of rape, uh, of this younger girl Sofia. And that he had spoken with Anna Ardin. And that Sofia had spoken with, with him [NB. I think this must mean Assange. Bostrum never spoke directly to Sofia.] And that Anna was royally pissed about uh, about what she heard from Sofia. Uh, and that she for one reason or another uh, had believed what Sofia told her…
  http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml

  Then Walstrom states that he IMMEDIATELY rang Ardin:

  “It was a short call, she was leaving to meet uh, Sofia to, uh, to go consult with uh, with the police. But what I learned from that call was that uh, I may have misunderstood but what I learned from that call it wasn’t what, what [Donald Bostrum] had already told me. Uh but it was very simply that Sofia wanted to force Julian to… Precisely, it, it’s part of what I forgot. She wanted to force him to, uh, test himself. Uh, but not a police complaint of rape. Uh… And that’s what I learned from that conversation.”

  So, at the precise time of Walstrom’s call to Anna, Sofia Wilen is either at the Soder hospital – or has already been there – for the third time, in preparation for going to the police. We do not know the exact reasons why Sofia is there at the hospital, but we know that she has already had her own HIV test, has received treatment for HIV, and has already had a ‘rape kit’ examination done and DNA-examples taken on one or other of her two previous hospital visits. And we also know that it is NOT Anna Ardin leading her through this process; Anna is simply joining her for the final stage of it, to support a younger woman’s complaints.

  At the precise same time, we have in three separate places – Assange’s autobiography, Assange’s own witness statement and the statement of Donald Bostrum – that Assange had been told by Sofia Wilen while she was at this third hospital visit that she was NOT going to the police and that she will meet him the next day about the HIV testing.

  So whose story keeps changing more frequently, depending on who she’s talking to – Anna’s or Sofia’s?

• 

  the blue December 5, 2013 at 04:41

  The original police report from 20 August 2010 regading SW contains a strangely vague phrase, “against her will”. Given the context it’s tempting to read this as “against her protests” but that’s not what it says. It could just as well mean “against her unexpressed will”. But then it becomes absurd, because who’d go to the police and report a rape because someone had sex with them against their silent, secret, unexpressed will? (Well, unless it was a threathening situation, but that’s not the case here.)

  It’s surprising to find such an unclear description of an alleged crime in a police report. It says something like

  THE CRIME Sofia states that she has been raped in her home in the morning of Tuesday 17 August by a man having intercourse with her against her will. See separate interview.

  (Swedish original: BROTTET Sofia uppgav att hon blivit våldtagen i sitt hem på morgonen tisdagen den 17augusti genom att en man haft samlag med henne mot hennes vilja. Se sep. förhör.)

  The Swedish original can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar , page 4 (page 1 of original document).

  I’ve always assumed that the claim that Sofia had protested had something to do with the ambiguousness of the phrase “against her will”, that someone misunderstood and read too much into it, but I’m not so sure any longer.

  To me, the fact the Linda Wassgren in her PM afterwards describes them all as “touchingly in agreement” that it was rape, is an indication that the police started acting emotionally rather than rationally. Despite the fact that the allegations concerned a serious crime, and involved a well known person and was likely to reach the media, they couldn’t get the description of the alleged crime right. “Against her will” could mean anything. There’s nothing in the long interview with Irmeli Krans that says that Sofia protested against sex. In what sense did he have sex with her “against her will” then? It makes little sense.

• 

  the blue December 5, 2013 at 05:19

  Some nuance might have been lost in translation in the previous post, but I think it’s possible to use the Swedish expression at least without the need for there to be an expressed wish of any kind. As in “he did it, even though I didn’t want to”. It says nothing about whether there was a protest or not, or any noticeable sign of disagreement. Anyway, the alleged “crime” looks more like a consenting situation, as reported in the interview with Irmeli.

• 

  Arbed December 5, 2013 at 10:37

  From above:

  So, THIS is VERBATIM the exact ‘comment’ Anna told Bostrum that she had said to Linda Wassgren:

  “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar, so that’s why I think it’s true.”

  then [Bostrum tells police] Anna explains to Bostrum what she had meant by “I experienced something similar” – “then she told me that bit about the condom”

  So, now tell me what was it EXACTLY that Sofia Wilen was telling Linda Wassgren at that precise moment when Anna Ardin chose to interject with that one sentence – that one SINGLE sentence “I believe Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar, so that’s why I think it’s true.”, with no further explanation?

  I wanted to explain why I’m so sure that “then she told me that bit about the condom” really does just describes an aside to Bostrum by Anna where she is explaining to Bostrum that she interjected into Sofia’s “crime” reporting to Linda Wassgren – “I experienced something similar” – at the precise moment Sofia is telling Linda Wassgren about strange ‘pulling balloon’ condom sounds during sex with Assange.

  It is clear from Bostrum’s statement that in this section he is describing a phone call from Anna later in the afternoon or evening of Friday 20 August – “Now we have been with the police and Sofia told her story”. I would guess that Anna makes this call at the earliest around, say, 4.15pm as Sofia is taken off to be formally interviewed by Irmeli Krans. Anna is quoted in Marie Svetland’s book as saying she only stayed at Klara for a short while (I think it mentioned only 15 minutes of that was talking to Linda about her own story, then she left pretty much straight after that to get ready to go to a party with Kajsa Borgnas), or it could have been after she’d left the station entirely.

  So, at this point in time, Anna does not need to give Donald Bostrum a full explanation of her ‘deliberately ripped condom’ ideas about her own experience with Assange, because Bostrum’s statement makes clear that he had already heard that story from Anna, and challenged Assange about it, on Friday MORNING. So, “then she told me that bit about the condom” in this later part of the day is just Bostrum’s clumsy way of telling the police that Anna was explaining to him that saying “I experienced something similar” to Linda Wassgren meant “deliberately ripped condom”.

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 10:25

  Hooray! We’re back up. Thanks to all who helped investigate and resolve the weird issue. (It was interesting, though, to see what Craig was writing about in 2009).

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 11:08

  Oh! Hold on. Mystery not quite resolved yet. Blog is restored but the last dozen or so comments made on the thread are missing now. Timestamp of last comment now visible is Dec 5th, 10.37am. Last comment posted before the blog went down was Dec 6th, around 5pm-ish. About 10 posts missing, I think.

  How could that happen? Ideas anyone? The also-still-active Al-Hilli thread seems to have a gap between Dec 5th, 2am and this morning too.

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 12:05

  Ok, I’ve managed to find a backup of the thread just before it went down so, for completeness, I’ll repost all the missing posts back in. Here goes. First one:

  Axel: ORIGINAL TIMESTAMP 5 Dec, 2013 – 12:39 pm

  I believe you are right on how it came about that “everyone agreed”. Linda Wassgren’s statement “Everyone agreed it was rape”, relies originally on the sentence that Anna adds: “I have experienced something similar”. Anna adds this sentence when she sits together with Sofia, which means when Linda talked to the two of them together. Which means BEFORE she talked to them separately. Which means very soon after 14.00 on Friday afternoon. I would guess before 14.26 when Sofia send her text message that “they/the police/ were very keen on getting their hands on him”.

  Somewhat later, Linda called round to Mats Gehlin, Johan Hallberg and one or two more people. Telling this story they would have agreed that it was rape. When Irmeli started her interview it was all set already. The headline of the crime was rape. “It was already decided that it is rape”, Irmeli complained.

  I believe you are right that the one sentence that Anna added dealt with a torn condom. But on this point I am not 100% confident yet. Is there anything else she could have said with the same effect?

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 12:07

  REPOSTED: The Blue: ORIGINAL TIMESTAMP 5 Dec, 2013 – 2:51 pm

  I believe you are right that the one sentence that Anna added dealt with a torn condom. But on this point I am not 100% confident yet. Is there anything else she could have said with the same effect?

  His alleged reluctance to use a condom. Sofias first story could have been a very short version, described him first as unwilling to use contraceptives, and then as taking advantage of her when she was still sleeping in the morning.

  In the longer interviw it’s revealed that a lot passed between the moment she woke up and the alleged slumber sex. During the hour preceding the alleged slumber sex she first went shopping, met her brother, got a ride with him, talked on the phone with a friend, and then made breakfast for her guest, had fully consensual sex again … and then there is the reported incident about the slumber sex, an hour after of the visit to the food store.

  A thorn condom is of course a specific case of such an alleged reluctance. That’s the story the women were selling, that he didn’t like contraceptives. That was meant to give a different meaning to the allegedly unprotected morning slumber sex, depicting him as taking deliberate advantage of the situation. Which doesn’t make any sense at all, because even if he had realised that she was, as she says herself, “half asleep”, there was no reason to expect she wouldn’t fully wake up any second. Looks more like a revengeful smearing of him.

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 12:12

  REPOSTED: Arbed: ORIGINAL TIMESTAMP

  5 Dec, 2013 – 3:44 pm

  Hi Blue,

  I basically agree with your ideas, but this bit:

  His alleged reluctance to use a condom. Sofias first story could have been a very short version, described him first as unwilling to use contraceptives, and then as taking advantage of her when she was still sleeping in the morning.

  is still not factoring in the indisputable FACT that there is physical, photographic evidence of a “deliberately torn” condom fragment from SOFIA WILEN. Where the hell did that come from, if the story she gave to Irmeli Krans was true? Why still believe Sofia’s story about condomless sex AGAINST HER WILL because she was “half-asleep” at all?

  Isn’t it more likely that this – the “half-asleep” unprotected sex allegation – is the SECOND story she has told – exclusively to Irmeli Krans – to completely water down her initial false allegations (first, over the phone to Anna, that “Assange continued despite her clear, loud protests ‘no, don’t go on’”, and possibly the same allegation to Linda Wassgren too) AND “I heard a strange sound like someone pulling on a balloon, it was too dark to see, during sex with Assange” (again, probably first over the phone to Anna to co-opt Anna into helping her make a police report against Assange, and then this same false story to Linda Wassgren with Anna chipping in that she thought ‘the same thing’ – ie. Assange ‘deliberately’ ripping a condom – had happened to her).

  If you are the same poster as Out of the Blue in Flashback, then I know that you put a heavy emphasis on Sofia Wilen’s psychological state. I do too, in a way, but my emphasis is different from yours – I don’t see “anxiety” or similar neuroses as motivating her actions in reporting him for ‘rape’. Which is what she did (as Massi Fritz keeps trying to tell everyone). HIV or pregnancy fears may be part of her fears (they are for practically all women), but I don’t think they are enough to explain what she does. And going to the police on Friday when she’s ALREADY had both HIV test & treatment (and ‘rape-kit’ DNA samples taken!) by Wednesday makes no sense. She is using that ‘I only wanted him to take a test’ as a smokescreen – both immediately before going to the police and after the police act on her report (arrest warrant 5pm/Sofia’s text 17.06, remember?) to cover her true malicious motives.

  My reading of Sofia Wilen’s idolisation of Assange, the daredevil ‘rockstar’ hero of internet whistleblowing, and her ‘groupie’ stalking thereof, and the way she plays up her sexuality in grossly stereotypical ways to ‘snag’ him, and then her subsequent annoyance – when her fantasy figure turns out to be a normal, fallible ‘bloke’ once sexually acquainted – about having to pay his ticket, having to buy/cook him breakfast, not liking the tone of his voice, ‘he’s nuts’/it’s not turned out so good’ text messages to Marie, her ‘sarcasm’ during a discussion with him about possible pregnancy is really grumpy, really angry. Even her text in the middle of the night that ‘now she’ll have to get a HIV test because of long, then abandoned, foreplay’ sounds more annoyed and grumpy than it does anxious. It’s like her fantasy bubble has been well and truly burst, and she doesn’t like it, not one little bit. She has objectified Assange and now the object of her desire turns out to be less-than-perfectly what she wanted. I don’t think this is necessarily sexist on Sofia Wilen’s part; it’s what all profoundly narcissistic people do – see others only in terms of their own needs and desires, especially sexual partners. To narcissistic people, sexual partners only exist in their heads as ‘object and fulfilment of my fantasies’, not as real, live people. And woe betide any ‘fantasy figure’ who badly falls short of the expected mark – revenge will be in order!

• 

  Arbed December 9, 2013 at 12:15

  REPOSTED: Arbed: ORIGINAL TIMESTAMP 5 Dec, 2013 – 4:11 pm

  Postscript to The Blue:

  If my reading of Sofia’s pyschological motivations is correct or near the mark – narcissistic personality type – then she’s getting angrier and angrier as time passes and Assange fails to call as he’s promised. She’s busy revisioning her experiences with Assange almost from the get-go on Tuesday morning and making stuff up as she goes along, just to get what she wants (ie. she wants fast HIV medication, so promptly tells hospital she’s been ‘raped’ if she thinks there’s any doubt they’d give it to her just for consensual unprotected sex with a relative stranger whose HIV status she has no idea about). So, speaking to Anna early Friday morning, and finding out that Assange had fibbed to her about not having sex with Anna is the final straw. Now she really does want revenge. So she opportunistically ‘borrows’ Anna’s comments about thinking that the condom broke during her sex with Assange, and maybe he did it deliberately – simply says “Yes, I think that happened with me too” (cue ‘pulling balloon sounds’ story) – and now Anna is convinced and ready to help her.

  Take another look at this possible ‘mock up’ of that first telephone call between Anna and Sofia early on Friday morning. I’m making no claim that it’s in any way accurate – though I’ve included some statements we know from elsewhere in the police protocol – I’m just trying to illustrate how all sorts of actions/ decisions/statements by others (Anna, Petra, Linda W, Mats G, Donald B, etc etc etc) in the timeline of events which follow on from it can be explained and understood in light of that initial ‘sparking point’:

  http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437375

Comments are closed.